The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-05-21

ldIdblOuS UDaU bD6 SO-call6u new bneOl-
ogy, by allowing the possibility of
continued probation after death for any
who in this life had been ignorant Of
Christ, ''cut the nerve of missions"
Early in the following year, 1888, the
agitation was renewed. Though DR..
Smyth's person had been rejected, DR..
Smyth's ideas were established in the
Seminary by the filling, during 1882, of
the vacant chairs with teachers who
were in general sympathy with him.
A formidable pamphlet now appeared
from ex-Professor Park, deliberately ar
guing the incompatibility of the pres
ent teaching of the Seminary with lidel
ity to the creed and statutes. Petit
tions to remove the Professors on that
ground were circulated for signature,
and appeal to the court was threatened.
The attack, though vociferous, failed
to elicit any reply. The defense re-
manned secure in their intrenchments.
The critical day of the annual meet
ing was gilded with discreet silences
and fraternal amenities, while the SOL
itary Achilles who carried lance was
content to advance toward the ram
parts, make his best bow, and retire in
season for the general doxology.
The quiet which for three years now
ensued brought forth the occasion of
renewed disturbance. The challenged
Professors did not hide their new light
under bushel. The AndoUer ReUieao
was established as representative of
the so-called new departure. The ESQ.,
teric utterances of the classroom were
boldly translated into theological es-
says for the general reader, which were
| gathered into the volume entitled Prog
ressive Orthodoxy" The opposition
must have been either more or less
than men not to have felt joy that their
adversaries had written a book" and
not to have felt that to decline its chal-
lenge was to accept the previous repulse
as conclusive defeat.
The Visitors, continuing insensible
to the light which Professor Parks
pamphlet had for three years been she'd
ding on their duty to interfere with the
propaganda of the new opinions, new
ertheless intimated their willingness to
give hearing to compliments. An
accusation euphemistically described as
a friendly suit" was accordingly pre-
sented by small committee of minis
tiers, in which one member of the Board
of Trustees appeared. The charges, at
first vague and sweeping, were referred
back to their authors for amendment,
and subsequently brought to public
hearing at the close of last year. The
vigor and skill both of the attack and
the defense, the elaborate arguments of
plaintiffs and respondents, and the
speeches of eminent legal counsel on
either side, have been followed by pc
riod of incubation upon the verdict
which amply justifies the common fame
respecting ''the laws delay"
| But while and before this campaign
! was pushed in the open field, ''still
hunt was going on elsewhere, and
giving an unexpected Interpretation to
the assertion made in 1882, that the So
called Andover hypothesis of contin-
ued probation "cut the nerve of mis-
sions." This had been commonly I'M
derstood to mean that the holders of
that hypothesis would not undertake
missionary effort. 1t was now discov-
cred that it also signified, practically
that if they would they should not.
The annual meetings of the Foreign
Board during the three years following
that declaration at Portland, had been
marked by harmony and catholicity.
But by some mysterious law of selec-
tion it had come to pass that the filling
of the Andover chairs by men of the
progressive orthodoxy had been bal
anced by the filling Of majority Of the
chairs of the Missionary Committee in
Boston with anti-progressives The
home pastorates had one after another
been opening to men not unfriendly to
the new tendency of opinion, but in a
fine rhythm of systole and disastole the
foreign bishoprics had been closing up.
A mild but inhexible non poSsunlus was
returned to every postulant for mission
airy service who would not return "the
everlasting no" to the Committees test
question of the possibility of any coz
tinuance of probation for heather.
Against this there was no lack of
complaint in private ways but reluc-
lance to face the possibilities of pub
lie controversy, which might injuri-
ously affect the missionary interest,
prevented any open remonstrance for a
year or more. 1t at length became clear
that the question should be brought be-
fore the churches supporting the mis-
sionary work whether, in the face of
urgent calls for fresh missionary rein
forcements, the nerve of missions should
be cut in this way. Finally, the Christ
ian Union, journal noted for its habit
ual abstention from theological contro-
versy, raised "Cautionary Signal"
referring in an editorial so entitled to